“It's the Consultation, Stupid!”.… Isn't It?

A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy

Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.

Toward topological descriptions of the therapeutic process: part 3. Two new metaphors based on quantum superposition, wave function "collapse," and conic sections

INTRODUCTION

Quantum theoretical discourse has previously illustrated (1) the therapeutic process as three-way macro-entanglement (between patient, practitioner, and remedy, called PPR entanglement), and (2) depicted the Vital Force (Vf) as a quantized spinning gyroscope. Combining the two via semiotic geometry leads to a topological description of the patient's journey to cure. In this present article, two new metaphors for the homeopathic therapeutic encounter are described, based on (1) a quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation (QMAM), and (2) the illuminated geometric patterns generated by a light source attached to a spinning gyroscope.

METHODS

(1) QMAM demonstrates how quantum superposition between DNA and mutant adaptations could arise and how environmental pressure "collapses" the DNA wave function to a particular state. In QMAM for the therapeutic process, isolation helps induce coherence between patient, practitioner, and remedy, generating a quantum-like superposition of patient "unwell" and "well" states. (2) The light beam from a precessing gyroscope sweeps out an ellipse, which becomes circular, the faster the gyroscope spins on its axis and the less it precesses. Ellipses have two foci that, as a metaphor for the state of a patient's Vf, are seen to represent the patient's "unwell" and "well" states.

RESULTS

Superposition of the patient's "unwell" and "well" states generated by the QMAM metaphor can "collapse" to the cured state, following decoherence at the end of therapeutic process. Similarly, the curative therapeutic process may be thought to "spin up" the patient's Vf, so the precessing ellipse's foci (i.e., the patient's "unwell" and "well" states) merge into a "circular" curative state.

CONCLUSIONS

The two new metaphors may be seen as equivalent and semiotic simplifications of the previous more complex topological description of the patient's "journey to cure."

Toward a topological description of the therapeutic process: part 2. Practitioner and patient perspectives of the "journey to cure"

BACKGROUND

The discourse of quantum theory has been used to describe (1) the homeopathic therapeutic process (in terms of three-way macro-entanglement between patient, practitioner, and remedy, called PPR entanglement), and (2) the homeopathic concept of the vital force.

METHODS

Combining these two approaches leads to a semiotic (i.e., pertaining to the theory of sign systems in language) geometry that illustrates the nature of this entanglement and how it could facilitate the patient's journey to cure. Here, this geometry is extended further to gain insight into both practitioner and patient perspectives of the process.

RESULTS

From the practitioner's perspective, the semiotic geometry predicts PPR entanglement, generating a number of distinguishable therapeutic outcomes that depend on the various patient-, disease-, and remedy-based "contributions" to the overall symptom picture of the remedy arrived at holistically. Furthermore, these outcomes may be seen as different facets of a more generalized PPR entangled state whose semiotic geometrical representation is hyperdimensional. Likewise, the patient's perspective of the journey to cure can also be represented semiotically, this time as a series of cross-sections through a hyperdimensional figure of similar symmetry, entering and leaving the patient's notional "dis-ease" space.

CONCLUSIONS

The semiotic geometries representing practitioner and patient experiences of the therapeutic process ultimately converge. Where they differ is that in elaborating the patient's journey to cure, the practitioner's perspective may be seen as from the outside of a whole process. As it is the patient who ultimately is traveling this journey, the patient's perspective is necessarily from the inside, of stages or cross-sections of the whole process.